danivon wrote:You posted a link to an op-ed on the ruling, which to be honest I skimmed over because it was mainly argument rather than fact. Because you had asked me for the political make-up of the panel, I decided the definitive source for that would be the ruling itself. It also helps that the document shows exactly what they said, not 'interpretations' from one side of the debate or the other.

The op-ed I linked to had the link to the decision embedded in it. Additionally, the guy who wrote the blog worked at Justice before quitting over the rampant racism of the Department under Holder.

Your challenge to freeman on (1) and (2) is risible, by the way. The second is clearly evidenced by Texas being included in the 1965 Act that they fell foul of in the judgment. If Texas did not have a history of disenfranchising blacks, there would be no need to have had a law passed to stop them doing it. Perhaps you missed out on the history of the Civil Rights movement in the South and what they were trying to overturn, but it is definitely not made up just to suit today's arguments on voting ID. The Voting Rights Act is a pretty clear indicator.

Your argumentation here is risible.

It was freeman2 who said the law was "partisan." He gave no evidence for that. I simply responded with a partisan law--one that had zero GOP votes--and asked if that was also discriminatory?

That's not risible and you're being a bit of something other than genius.

Nearly 50 years ago a law was passed. In perpetuity, Texas must prove that any changes it makes are not racist.

Why? Most of the people who were responsible for discrimination when the law was passed are dead. Is there evidence that Texas is the same place it was in 1965?

Doctor Fate wrote:Nearly 50 years ago a law was passed. In perpetuity, Texas must prove that any changes it makes are not racist.

Why? Most of the people who were responsible for discrimination when the law was passed are dead. Is there evidence that Texas is the same place it was in 1965?

Not in perpetuity, but until 2021. It is still in force due to a 25-year renewal passed in 2006 and signed into law by George W Bush. The House voted 390-33 in favour of renewal, Senate 98-0.

Perhaps you should ask them why it needs to remain in force.

But seeing as it does, surely you want to make sure that the State of Texas are acting within the law, and that the Federal government is holding it to the law?

As the ruling is that the effect of the changes they want to make to voting laws is unfairly discriminating against African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Which does clearly show that there's evidence of a current problem in Texas.

danivon wrote:But seeing as it does, surely you want to make sure that the State of Texas are acting within the law, and that the Federal government is holding it to the law?

I'll wait until we see if the USSC takes the case. To me, this is insulting to people of color and more paternalism.

I thought it was about fraud.

'Paternalism' could be on way of looking at saying we don't trust citizens enough to let them vote without them jumping through hoops.

And I think some 'people of color' are a bit insulted to have to prove who they are after years of legally voting with no problems.

Shades of opinion, I guess.

danivon wrote:I thought it was about fraud.

'Paternalism' could be on way of looking at saying we don't trust citizens enough to let them vote without them jumping through hoops.

Nah, it's believing they can't get over a pebble in front of them without government assistance.

And I think some 'people of color' are a bit insulted to have to prove who they are after years of legally voting with no problems.

I'm insulted that anyone can show up at the polling place, say they are me, and vote.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nah, it's believing they can't get over a pebble in front of them without government assistance.

Now, that is patronising and insulting...

The charging of a fee amounts to a poll tax. The lack of range of ID that can be applied means more people are unlikely to have that, and more likely to have to pay, simply so that they can vote. Who is most likely to currently lack that ID? Poor people - who will also be more affected by a charge. Old people - who won't always be well placed to go all over the place to collect information they need to obtain extra ID.

The elderly poor are most likely to be disadvantaged by this, and more likely to have been perfectly legally voting without needing ID for years.

And minorities are more likely to be poor in Texas. Those without the requisite ID for all kinds of reasons are more likely to in a racial minority.

It's not about saying that 'people of color' as a group need more help with basics. It's about saying that government should not put unfair hurdles in the way of people.

I'm insulted that anyone can show up at the polling place, say they are me, and vote.

When did that last happen? To you, or to anyone you know?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nah, it's believing they can't get over a pebble in front of them without government assistance.

Now, that is patronising and insulting...

The charging of a fee amounts to a poll tax.

Rubbish.

No fee in PA, but it's still unjust, right? It doesn't matter what the bar is--unless fraud is permitted, it's "suppression."

The elderly poor are most likely to be disadvantaged by this, and more likely to have been perfectly legally voting without needing ID for years.

Right, because $6 for a LIFETIME ID is a "poll tax."

I've spent more for a latte.

Paternalism is the idea that people "can't" do something. This has all been theoretical. There is no evidence of actual suppression, is there?

To prove that, we would have to have an election with ID laws in place and then have people who actually COULD NOT get an ID card.

If Canada can do it, so can we.

It's not about saying that 'people of color' as a group need more help with basics. It's about saying that government should not put unfair hurdles in the way of people.

Mmm, hmm. So, they should not have to show ID for alcohol, cigarettes or cold medicine either?

Aren't those discriminatory?

I'm insulted that anyone can show up at the polling place, say they are me, and vote.

When did that last happen? To you, or to anyone you know?

Again, read this carefully, how would anyone know? Unless you always vote (and anyone can access that info), anyone can show up without ID and vote in your place.

So, how do you prove fraud since no ID is needed?

Doctor Fate wrote:Rubbish.

Argue with the courts.

No fee in PA, but it's still unjust, right? It doesn't matter what the bar is--unless fraud is permitted, it's "suppression."

There are other reasons why I think the PA law is unfair. The Texas one is simply far worse. So bad that the judges appeared to commiserate with the lawyers representing Texas for the paucity of their own case and how it hindered them.

Right, because $6 for a LIFETIME ID is a "poll tax."

Any amount is, if that's the only way someone can vote.

I've spent more for a latte.

You were robbed. Or perhaps are clearly comfortable enough that it doesn't bother you. Bully for you.

Paternalism is the idea that people "can't" do something.

Well, no, literally it's the idea that the leaders of society have to behave like fathers do to children. So it can just as easily include telling people what they can and cannot do, or not trusting them to 'behave'.

This has all been theoretical. There is no evidence of actual suppression, is there?

And the evidence of actual in person voter fraud? I have seen evidence of absentee ballot fraud, but that's different - voter ID at polling places doesn't relate to that at all.

To prove that, we would have to have an election with ID laws in place and then have people who actually COULD NOT get an ID card.

If Canada can do it, so can we.

You underestimate Canada. I think they'd come up with something better than the US could, frankly. In fact, it is possible to vote in Canada without photo ID. You can bring name & address evidence. You can be verified by another voter if you have no valid ID (but they have to have theirs).

Elections Canada guidance

Mmm, hmm. So, they should not have to show ID for alcohol, cigarettes or cold medicine either?

Aren't those discriminatory?

Oddly enough, I don't have to show ID for alcohol, cigarettes or cold medicine, and I'm surprised if most adults who look old enough would have to. Perhaps if the cashier is particularly stupid or wants to mess with people that day.

That ID check is to prove age, not to prove identity - totally different tests.

Question - how many people haev fake ID, that they use to buy alcohol?

So, how do you prove fraud since no ID is needed?

By having examples where a legitmate voter found someone had voted in their place.

You don't read what I write.

I find your illogic both wearying and beyond cure.

If you don't mind my interupting your lovely discussion, in the US you do need to show photo ID for certain cold medicine.

As I understand it, the Indiana law is very similar to the Texas law, but allowed because Indiana isn't covered by the 1965 law.

RJ, do you have a link to the Indiana law, I'd be interested to see how similar it is?

Is the photo ID for cold medicine used to establish identity (which would make sense if matching a prescription), or age eligibility?

danivon wrote:RJ, do you have a link to the Indiana law, I'd be interested to see how similar it is?

Is the photo ID for cold medicine used to establish identity (which would make sense if matching a prescription), or age eligibility?

It is to track the quantity purchased. There are limits so that we don't all start making meth in our basements.

I'm not joking.

I've always been amazed that CVS and pseudophedrine manufactures did not have the lobbying clout to prevent this silly law. Oh wait, Ricky tells me that regulations exist to solve problems. Therefore these regulations must be good.

Here's Wikipedia's treatent of voter id law. Check out the section on US state voter id. There's a definite pattern between red and blue states. I'm sure you can Google your way to the actual Indiana law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_l ... ugust_2012

ray

I've always been amazed that CVS and pseudophedrine manufactures did not have the lobbying clout to prevent this silly law. Oh wait, Ricky tells me that regulations exist to solve problems. Therefore these regulations must be good.

Is it a law or regulation or is it a polciy of major drug retailers?
If its a policy that the stores have adopted in order to help law authorities is that bad?
Why?

If you want to buy a cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine at a Target store, you are going to have to show the pharmacist a photo ID and give personal information for the company’s database.
These extraordinary security measures are not required by state or federal law. But Target has imposed them to help stop the spread of an illegal drug that has devastated the Midwest, where the retail giant is headquartered.
The reason: Pseudoephedrine can be converted to methamphetamine, also called crystal meth, a cheap and highly addictive illicit drug.
When one customer recently asked the Target store in Germantown why she needed to show her ID to buy cold medicine, the pharmacist told her it was state law. It is not.
Called the next day by The Gazette, a pharmacist, who declined to give her name, said it was a federal regulation. It is not.
Pressed, the pharmacist said it was store policy and referred questions to the regional pharmacy supervisor in Columbia. Target’s policy began in April for all its stores nationwide, corporate spokeswoman Aimee Sands said from Target’s Minneapolis headquarters.

http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/022406/p ... 1962.shtml

rickyp wrote:ray

I've always been amazed that CVS and pseudophedrine manufactures did not have the lobbying clout to prevent this silly law. Oh wait, Ricky tells me that regulations exist to solve problems. Therefore these regulations must be good.

Is it a law or regulation or is it a polciy of major drug retailers?
If its a policy that the stores have adopted in order to help law authorities is that bad?
Why?

If you want to buy a cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine at a Target store, you are going to have to show the pharmacist a photo ID and give personal information for the company’s database.
These extraordinary security measures are not required by state or federal law. But Target has imposed them to help stop the spread of an illegal drug that has devastated the Midwest, where the retail giant is headquartered.
The reason: Pseudoephedrine can be converted to methamphetamine, also called crystal meth, a cheap and highly addictive illicit drug.
When one customer recently asked the Target store in Germantown why she needed to show her ID to buy cold medicine, the pharmacist told her it was state law. It is not.
Called the next day by The Gazette, a pharmacist, who declined to give her name, said it was a federal regulation. It is not.
Pressed, the pharmacist said it was store policy and referred questions to the regional pharmacy supervisor in Columbia. Target’s policy began in April for all its stores nationwide, corporate spokeswoman Aimee Sands said from Target’s Minneapolis headquarters.

http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/022406/p ... 1962.shtml

Wrong.

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/inf ... 072423.htm